CubColtPacer

yes, it's 1-0.

Well, this is an interesting outing for Marquis. None of his typical ground balls through 2 innings, but 2 strikeouts and 3 popouts to go with the 1 fly ball.

DeRosa wouldn't be dealt so soon unless Hendry is willing to swallow his pride on what is a bad FA signing. The others maybe, but why would Hendry have to swallow his pride over DeRosa? So far his start is even better than his season last year, and his contract is a bargain even if his OPS drops by 50-60 points over the course of the year.

With all of the suckiness over 25 years, it would be too difficult to pick the 25 worst. So many are worthy of that title. You'd probably have to set a minimum number of plate appearances for hitters, innings for starters, and games for relievers. Otherwise, you're going to end up with the 1999 version of Micah Bowie in the starting rotation (9.96 ERA in 47 innings). oh, i think Anthony Young, Ozzie Timmons and Shane Andrews got enough playing time to qualify Patterson's 2005 and Cedeno's 2006 would probably be easy choices for CF and SS. kevin roberson and rey sanchez may disagree with you Yeah, I guess it would depend on the at-bats needed. If it was more than 300, than neither of those would have a season that would match the two I mentioned.

With all of the suckiness over 25 years, it would be too difficult to pick the 25 worst. So many are worthy of that title. You'd probably have to set a minimum number of plate appearances for hitters, innings for starters, and games for relievers. Otherwise, you're going to end up with the 1999 version of Micah Bowie in the starting rotation (9.96 ERA in 47 innings). oh, i think Anthony Young, Ozzie Timmons and Shane Andrews got enough playing time to qualify Patterson's 2005 and Cedeno's 2006 would probably be easy choices for CF and SS.

Ohh......that's why he wouldn't take a walk. I was thinking that Cedeno probably forgot and instinctively stepped down to try to walk back into the dugout and got surprised by the base.

By the same token, teams have days where they don't get many chances-it happens all the time. Both are at fault yesterday-the Cubs would have had a .330-.340 OBP yesterday if a run had been knocked in when it was supposed to, but their lack of chances in extra innings was also a big factor in the loss This is their first game out of the last 6 in which they had less than a .355 OBP for the game-if individual hitters can play the percentage card, then so can the team.

I still can't figure out why Lou called that. Jones racks up plenty of strikeouts as it is and that was a pitch he couldn't do anything with. The best result he could have gotten with that pitch was a foul ball out of play; that's pretty much it. I'm concerned with Lou's style of managing. While I don't think he's as prone to stupid and head-scratching decisions as previous managers, I think he tries too hard to micromanage the game. Part of this might have to do with a lack of familiarity with his players' strengths and weaknesses, which is understandable, but if this trend continues, I won't be too happy with it. Cubs had so many chances to win way before that call. That call didn't lose the game, not even close. We could've played another 9 innings and not score. We just couldn't get a big hit when needed. I hear the consensus sounds like the Cubs just couldn't get the big hit despite numerous chances. It should be pointed out the Cubs drew 2 walks to the Pirates 8. That's the key, as it always is with the Cubs. Their OBP yesterday was about .280, absolutely pathetic. Pitt's OBP was .361. They are the ones that had all the chances to score. Add Lou's insistence on running his few baserunners into outs on a regular basis and you have a perfectly good explanation for why the Cubs couldn't score yesterday. That was the Cubs problem in extra innings-but the Cubs would have had a much higher OBP if they could have just brought a runner home that didn't even require a hit in the 8th and again in the 10th. I'm not upset at the Cubs who couldn't get the big hit, because you're right, they didn't have very many chances in extra innings with runners on base. I am upset though at the people who didn't need a hit to score a run (2nd and 3rd with nobody out in the 8th) or advance a runner (2nd base with nobody out in the 10th)-that would be Murton, Jones, and Lee. After those chances their OBP divebombed because they only got 1 runner on base in the last 4 innings.

well we had to replace him in order to have better, um, defense. Or something. No, we replaced him to get an insurance run with Murton, who only needed a fly ball with 2 runners in scoring position, a left-hander on the mound, and nobody out-the team didn't score that run, and then Dempster gave up the 1 run lead.

I can't see the game either-but if I remember correctly, it was Ward being called safe at second on a single in the 7th that Tracy thought he was out that got him ejected-it was the play when Soriano singled in Izturis with the run that gave the Cubs the lead.

Wow, after that 8 pitch at-bat to start the inning it only took 4 pitches to get the 3 outs.

I wanna say we did that in spite of Izturis, not because of it. It was in spite of him, although Izturis does have a .400 OBP in the last week :D Did not Izzy start the rally with a 2 out single? No, that was the night the team faced Armas-they faced Snell in the game on Wednesday and won 7-1.

I wanna say we did that in spite of Izturis, not because of it. It was in spite of him, although Izturis does have a .400 OBP in the last week :D

Interesting-this is the exact same lineup, both positions and spots, that beat Snell last week. I bet that is not a coincidence.

With left-handers coming up the next two days, I'd be very surprised if Jones and Floyd weren't the CF/RF tonight.

The Yankees have made the playoffs every year. The Cards made the playoffs in '04, '05, and '06. Neither of them had the young arms and the farm system the Cubs had in '03, and neither of them failed to take advantage of the opportunities they had. The Red Sox have contended for the playoffs every year. The Mets were the only high spender that failed recently, and they changed their entire organization. The Cubs, however, keep trying to make things work with the current system, and it hasn't worked. They aren't the only ones. The Dodgers have been in and out of the playoffs. The Mariners haven't been in the playoffs for years. The Angels have been up and down. The Orioles haven't made the playoffs for years, and the Giants and Phillies haven't either. All of those teams have had similar payrolls to the Cubs.

This is the tipping point year for Hendry. His biggest problem in his tenure was staying almost completely pat during the offseasons of 04 and 05. That didn't leave the team with enough talent when both bad development (Patterson, Cedeno) and devastating injuries to both middle of the order and starting pitchers happened (Nomar, Lee, Prior, Wood). Now Hendry didn't stand pat whatsoever. If this team ends up working out and being a playoff team, then Hendry gets more rope. If they have a high number of wins but no playoffs (say 87 or more), he gets next year to finish out his contract but would need to do something great to get extended. If this team is at .500 or worse with another big payroll, he will have to go.

Which is one of the reasons why this article was very irritating to read.... Does Dave van Dyck know what he's talking about in general? All he did was casually mention that DeRosa has started in right before-I don't think that really says much about what's going to happen against a LHP. It's not like Lou told him that was an option against a left-hander. I know we've discussed this before, but people have been saying this about Murton's playing time since the season started. Don't worry, it's early. He'll get the majority of the time. Floyd is just hot. It was just an isolated occurrence (DeRosa's start). I think there is reason for concern that Murton is the odd man out at this point. There is a simple solution to getting an "everyday" lineup. Theriot at SS. Murton/Floyd platooning in RF. Jones in CF. Send Pie down (if he's not going to play regularly) and bring in a RH who can play CF and platoon with Jones. All I was saying is that there is legitimate concern about Murton being the odd man out, but this article adds absolutely nothing to that concern.

Great discussion. Where would you guys say that the Cubs biggest depth problem is? Catcher is number one-putting Blanco in as the everyday catcher instead of Barrett would be a big loss to the offense (although not so far this season). 1B is another one-although the Cubs have two decent candidates to fill it this year unlike last year, that still is such a huge dropoff. 3B is probably the 3rd position player-the Cubs have Scott Moore in the minors who could come up and do an ok job filling in, but it would be trouble if he had to be in the lineup for a long time. Another SP is also a minor depth concern, although if Sean Marshall continues to pitch the way he has coming back from his injury that concern isn't very strong. offensively, yes, but blanco handles pitching staffs remarkably well and is a top notch defensive player. at 1b, of course there's going to be a dropoff, derrek lee is one of the best hitters in the game. at 3b, derosa would slide over before moore would be utilized, although he may be called up if ramirez goes down. Yeah, I was looking more at serious injuries-I think the team has enough depth that if a guy goes down for 5-10 days it won't be much of a problem no matter who it is.

Great discussion. Where would you guys say that the Cubs biggest depth problem is? Catcher is number one-putting Blanco in as the everyday catcher instead of Barrett would be a big loss to the offense (although not so far this season). 1B is another one-although the Cubs have two decent candidates to fill it this year unlike last year, that still is such a huge dropoff. 3B is probably the 3rd position player-the Cubs have Scott Moore in the minors who could come up and do an ok job filling in, but it would be trouble if he had to be in the lineup for a long time. Another SP is also a minor depth concern, although if Sean Marshall continues to pitch the way he has coming back from his injury that concern isn't very strong.

I think people were responding to the crack that Marquis has no "stuff" to get back. His ML body of work also shows that he must have pretty decent stuff-he may not have shown that consistently, but it is there.

Which is one of the reasons why this article was very irritating to read.... Does Dave van Dyck know what he's talking about in general? All he did was casually mention that DeRosa has started in right before-I don't think that really says much about what's going to happen against a LHP. It's not like Lou told him that was an option against a left-hander.

That scenario crossed through my mind as well-it's just really hard to tell which teams would be in the WC race this early. My goal for the team is that they can be 5 games over .500 each month from here on out (month of May starts today on that)-if they do that, then they would probably win at least one of the two races. Right now all the Cubs can do is win though-and if the Brewers do run away later in the summer, at least the team will still be in good position for the WC at that point.

On the other hand, Barrett is a pretty healthy guy and he's 6'3" 210 lb. Wasn't Barrett a little plagued by injuries when the Cubs got him though?

I just re-read the thread, and other than navigator's point replying to you just above, nobody has said that the Brewers will fall just because they are the Brewers. So I'm not really sure who you're responding to.